Re: limiting our set of cities

[Rodney Van Meter <[e-mail]>]

> On Feb 20, 2020, at 21:46, Christian Hopps <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> I think that we should pick the top 12-16 locations that participants are from, then for each destination prior to it being considered we calculate the travel PAIN (cost + time) for that set of participants.
> 
> It's hard to believe Singapore and Thailand would be in such heavy rotation if this were done. I like these places to visit, but really why are we going to them so often? A cynical part of me thinks "someone[s] important likes going there" might be carrying too much weight in these decisions.
> 

To a first approximation, the pain is symmetric. I do about ten transpac or trans-asian trips a year, almost all in economy class, and I find it brutal; I don’t know how people who travel more (including a number on this list) do it.

Just remember this:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2013/05/07/map-more-than-half-of-humanity-lives-within-this-circle/ <https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2013/05/07/map-more-than-half-of-humanity-lives-within-this-circle/>

and if you think, “Well, but IETF participation isn’t evenly spread,” that might be true, but that’s a reason to *stay* in Asia-Pacific, not leave it. Many of them face additional barriers, including language, economics, and different employment structures that may not value IETF or give travel flexibility, so the hurdles are even higher than just hours in 33 inches seat-to-seat.

My kudos to all of you who have been making these treks multiple times a year for three decades now…

—Rod